MountainFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:55 pm

The article is a few days old, but I couldn't find it posted here.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/120...r-ohare-expansion-new-airport.html

Looks like Smisek is telling Chicago that at least for UA there is no need for a new runway at ORD or a new airport. It seems the mayor thinks differently.

Quote:
Financially strapped airlines would benefit more from modernizing air traffic control systems than “pouring concrete,” Smisek said.

Pressed on what type of expansion is needed to meet passenger demand at O’Hare, he replied, “None.” He argued that expansion work already completed at O’Hare was “more than sufficient” to meet “any reasonably foreseeable demand.”


[Edited 2012-04-24 14:56:07]
SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
 
User avatar
IrishAyes
Posts: 2162
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Probably one of the most logical things I've heard said in a long time within this industry.

It amazes me how air transport is as safe as it is these days yet ATC systems themselves are outdated by nearly 25 years. Improvements are held back by serious lack of funding and political obstructionism. The US is being crippled by this as we speak; it is the only major country that has not created an independent ATC company.

Kudos to Smisek.
confidence is silent. insecurities are loud.
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:14 pm

It should come as no surprise that the City of Chicago will continue to push for the extra runway for several reasons:
- It's about prestige: The Establishment (proper noun intended) has staked political capital on the expansion and in doing so, ruffled some feathers and burned some bridges.
- It's about jobs: Influential construction lobbies, er unions, could use them. Money = power and it all cycles back to The Establishment (see above).
- It's about control: ORD expansion means more land under its control and that ultimately will serve as an additional source of revenue (fingers crossed) down the road.
- It's about money: If you doubt the first three ooints, at least believe the last one because Chicago needs it to tie everything else together.

FWIW, I side with Smisek.

777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:20 pm

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
It amazes me how air transport is as safe as it is these days yet ATC systems themselves are outdated by nearly 25 years.

I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe. In other words, there have not been any accidents directly attributed to the outdated ATC systems to prompt any sense of urgency for overhauling the system. It has become double edged sword.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:19 pm

United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:36 pm

I find it baffling that United and American thinks that the airport needs no expansion. When there are greater than 15% (being very generous here) of flights not operating on time, that indicates a problem. I can see how they can disregard the need for runway (9C-27C) as the other 7 runways should be more than sufficient to cover the airport's needs for the foreseeable future. But the airport is in desperate need of a new terminal or updated terminals to expand beyond it's current gate capacity. The economy won't stay in the crapper for long and when it does emerge, the airport should be ready to handle the masses. I wish we could fast forward 5-10 years from now when both AA and UA are whining about the delays they could have prevented.
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:55 pm

Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
But the airport is in desperate need of a new terminal or updated terminals to expand beyond it's current gate capacity.

Strawman alert...

ORD management and City of Chicago bureaucrats naturally want to lock carriers into ORD because to do so means money for the city. In a doomsday scenario, ORD doesn't add (runway) capacity within the next, say, 15 years, all the while the State of Illinois, DoT, FAA and others throw their weight behind an equally large airport near Peotone which could potentially grab traffic from MDW and the larger southern and southwestern Chicago suburbs, not to mention NW Indiana. Most importantly from Chicago's standpoint, Peotone would effectively be out of its tax grab.

Smisek (and previously, but not more than six months ago Arpey) are wise to push back and hold onto their cash, all the while seeing who might best serve their needs in the years to come.

777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
dirtyfrankd
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:10 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:06 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe. In other words, there have not been any accidents directly attributed to the outdated ATC systems to prompt any sense of urgency for overhauling the system. It has become double edged sword.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. While unfortunate, definitely true.
 
joeman
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:36 am

Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU
 
lat41
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:23 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:52 am

Conti-nited has the flexibility to not depend on ORD quite as much with more hubs to shift traffic to than before the merger. Whether its circumventing bad weather or more long range planning. UA may have more breathing room and time.
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:32 am

Quoting lat41 (Reply 9):
Conti-nited has the flexibility to not depend on ORD quite as much with more hubs to shift traffic to than before the merger.

I believe United had that option long before they merged with CO. DEN and IAD saw some expansion because United specifically cited it's inability to expand at ORD.
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:07 am

Just to be clear... ORD already has 3 parallel runways, one of them new and one lengthened.

A fourth parallel runway (10C/28C) is already well under construction (over 50% when looking at Google maps). Does anyone know the status of that project?

The airlines have already agreed not to fight the fifth parallel runway (10R/28L), the very south one. I believe land acquisition is already complete there, or mostly complete. Is the runway fully funded and/or under construction yet?

The one in question in this article is the sixth and final parallel runway (9C/27C) which doesn't require any land acquisition. I agree with Rahmbo here, it will be needed, most likely before UA and AA realize it, and it should be built but by that time we will already have 5 parallels so I am not so worried.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:50 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 11):

I think what UAL and AMR are having heartburn with is the new LCC terminal that Daley wanted that UAL and AMR say they aren't going to use and see NO NEED to Pay for it. Via increased landing fees. . That's more likely the problem.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:51 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe.

Lol right.

NS
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:08 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.

Bingo! UA just doesn't want to fork out anymore money. This isn't about what's best for ORD in the long run but rather what is best for UA right now. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but let's call it what it is-

The city of Chicago wants jobs, federal funds and the prestige of ORD staying on top and........
UA and AA don't want to have to pay for any of it.
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:41 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):

I agree. I think the last thing UA (or for that matter, AA) wants to do is pay higher landing fees to finance a new runway, because they would have to pass those costs on to passengers in the form of higher fares. With several fare increases already occurring this year, I'm sure another one would not be welcome. I've always marveled at the fact that UA and AA have competed so well in ORD, with neither one giving in to the other, even when WN also competes with them to a certain extent (although being at MDW makes it easier).
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:50 am

In the long run, won't this just make ORD even less prevalent than it already is? Sure, being one of the biggest airports in the world is great! But when airlines don't want to start new routes into that airport because their afraid of higher landing taxes, then what's the point? The economy that the airport creates is slowly destroyed by airlines that grew beyond their means and were too busy worrying about who's the biggest and who's got the most planes.

Yes, I understand UA is the biggest airline at ORD, and they certainly have a say in what happens, but how about for once, UA actually tries to draft a plan for modernization at ORD, and they stop just talking about it. The domestic terminals look like their something out of the 1970s and the technology in them is even worse. T5 still uses old CRT's for the FIDs... It's clear that O'Hare needs a major overhaul and not only expansion.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:01 pm

The last thing ORD needs is expansion. Especially in the Summer,I avoid ORD becuase of thunderstorms.
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
fun2fly
Posts: 907
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:09 pm

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
Kudos to Smisek
Quoting 777fan (Reply 2):
FWIW, I side with Smisek

I've been on this site a long time and never saw two people ever agree w/Smisek. Remarkable. UAL could simply upgauge at ORD and have built in expansion if they need to - no additional slots or runways required. Even use DEN and CLE more as a relief valve if it gets tight at ORD. All valid reasons why Smisek is correct and there is no reason to increase fees.

Quoting joeman (Reply 8):
Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU

Hilarious Joeman.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:56 pm

Personally, I think Smisek and the City are both right. The ATC system needs updating, and ORD needs more runways. UA and AA aren't about to be stagnent for the next 10 to 20 years as to the amount of flights they intend to operate out of ORD.

Tom Horton, AA's CEO, has said that he intends to increase operations at AA's cornerstones by 20% over the next 5 years. A 20% increase would have AA/Eagle at over 550 daily departures.

If that happens, will Smisek simply sit on the number of flights he now has at ORD? Highly unlikely.

Perhaps after a few years in Chicago, Smisek will realize who delayed ORD gets, when we get weather that isn't that troublesome (snow showers that last for 6 to 8 hours, light rain showers with gusty winds, etc.). It's not like IAH, when the only real problem is a hurricane that shuts down the ATC system for several hundred miles.

What Smisek doesn't understand is that in Illinois, politicians tell business leaders what to expect, and there is no negotiation. If Smisek doesn't like it, he could move the ORD hub to CLE, where government tries to be accomodating of business.
 
jdwfloyd
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:29 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:07 pm

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):

What do you base that on? The US NAS, while running with outdated technology is the safest and most efficient airspace system in the world. I'm not sure how privatizing the ATC system would improve capacity or efficiency. That idea did not work in Europe or Canada, who combined works a fraction of the traffic the US system does. There is a lot of room from improvement here State side, and new programs a moving forward to modernize the NAS.

[Edited 2012-04-25 06:17:55]
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3734
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:23 pm

Well I guess if Smisek doesn't like it he can always move the HQ (back) to IAH. Oh wait, he and the city are at loggerheads there too. 
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:36 pm

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
Quote:Financially strapped airlines would benefit more from modernizing air traffic control systems than “pouring concrete,” Smisek said.

Pressed on what type of expansion is needed to meet passenger demand at O’Hare, he replied, “None.” He argued that expansion work already completed at O’Hare was “more than sufficient” to meet “any reasonably foreseeable demand.

Have to agree with Smisek. The additional runways have been and are being built at this time. The ATC system is what is now needed to speed up performance and efficiency. And why should they pay for higher fees to build another Terminal for other carriers. If LCC's want in then let them fund it. If the city wants them in then the city should fund it.
 
jreuschl
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:25 pm

Would this runway make it A380 ready?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:27 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 21):
Well I guess if Smisek doesn't like it he can always move the HQ (back) to IAH. Oh wait, he and the city are at loggerheads there too. 
Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
Looks like Smisek is telling Chicago that at least for UA there is no need for a new runway at ORD or a new airport. It seems the mayor thinks differently.

It makes good sense for the airport to be completely full and totally constrained, if there was any spare room then WN might try to build a customs facility or something. We all know competition costs jobs and should be avoided at all costs. :p
 
Hirnie
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 7:13 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:47 pm

Quoting jdwfloyd (Reply 20):
The US NAS, while running with outdated technology is the safest and most efficient airspace system in the world

Have you got any source or study to backk up it's the safest in the world?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 22):
And why should they pay for higher fees to build another Terminal for other carriers. If LCC's want in then let them fund it. If the city wants them in then the city should fund it.

  
 
cyeg66
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:33 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:37 pm

Quoting jdwfloyd (Reply 20):
I'm not sure how privatizing the ATC system would improve capacity or efficiency. That idea did not work in Europe or Canada, who combined works a fraction of the traffic the US system does.

Really? A little one-sided in your analysis, methinks.
slow to 160, contact tower, slow to 160, contact tower, slow to....ZZZZZZZ......
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:45 pm

I 100% agree that new ATC is required. However, the new runway arrangement will also simplify ATC tasks...

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.

   UA knows the duopoly will be watered down as VX, B6, and others would receive slots.

Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
I find it baffling that United and American thinks that the airport needs no expansion.

They know ORD must be expanded. Its just not to their immediate advantage. So why pay for it?

Quoting 777fan (Reply 6):
In a doomsday scenario, ORD doesn't add (runway) capacity within the next, say, 15 years, all the while the State of Illinois, DoT, FAA and others throw their weight behind an equally large airport near Peotone

Peotone or other nearby hub isn't the doomsday. The doomsday is a shift in customer hubbing preference to another region or hub-bypass. Asian airlines will certainly use the 787 to bypass hubs. I also expect the MD-80 retirements to eventually lead to more hub bypass (ironic, eh?).

We should expect hub growth at DEN (high O&D), PHX (I wonder if the 4th runway will ever happen), CLT, MCO, IAH, etc. The worst case scenario is another hub becomes the #2 hub in the US. ORD has already fallen to the #4 global airport in pax traffic. (Remember when it was #1?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...iest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Without ORD expansion, FRA, HKG, and possibly a few others will pass ORD. While some might dismiss this as prestige, it effects the ability of Chicago to attract business HQs, conventions, etc.


There isn't a shortage of available hub space:

Quoting joeman (Reply 8):
Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU

The issue is those cities didn't grow their O&D to support hubs.

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 14):
Bingo! UA just doesn't want to fork out anymore money. This isn't about what's best for ORD in the long run but rather what is best for UA right now. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but let's call it what it is-

Agreed. For the greater Chicago area, the best solution is to grow ORD. For UA, it is to hold the status quo.

I hope ORD dropping to #8 was only a seasonal January phenomenon (see the Wikipedia link). If air travel once again doubles every 15 years, expect ORD to nearly drop off the top 30 list.


Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:46 pm

Quoting joeman (Reply 8):
Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU

It's a two way street. Have you looked at the historical fee structures in CVG and PIT?

Airlines invest in hubs they believe can make money. That doesn't earn the city an automatic right to retain hubs if they are not economical.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.
Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
I find it baffling that United and American thinks that the airport needs no expansion.

It is not just that UA and AA do not want to finance new runways, although that is a factor. They also want to prevent competitors from moving in. UA does not want ORD to turn into DEN, which has so much capacity other airlines could easily move in and establish substantial operations.

UA and AA will also have trouble squatting on ORD because there are a tremendous number of RJs operating there. Because of the fuel inefficiency of the RJs, those operations are not sustainable and will have to be reduced, particularly the longer routes. Those 2 hour+ 50 seat RJ flights are headed to oblivion.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:15 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 29):
UA and AA will also have trouble squatting on ORD because there are a tremendous number of RJs operating there. Because of the fuel inefficiency of the RJs, those operations are not sustainable and will have to be reduced, particularly the longer routes. Those 2 hour+ 50 seat RJ flights are headed to oblivion.

I think this is the main reason UA is objecting. If there are a significant number of new flights to compete against, both UA and AA would have to drop competing RJ routes which would open them up to more competition... DEN would be a good analogy. A 'somewhat stable duopoly' was ripped asunder by LCC competition.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:20 pm

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
It amazes me how air transport is as safe as it is these days yet ATC systems themselves are outdated by nearly 25 years.

Not really outdated, just needs improved technology. The backbone of the system is fantastic.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
The US is being crippled by this as we speak; it is the only major country that has not created an independent ATC company.

And I'm happy for that every day. ATC is a fundamentally governmental function. You privatize ATC and you get what happened in Zurich.

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe.

Exactly. If it ain't broke, you don't screw it up.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 22):
The ATC system is what is now needed to speed up performance and efficiency.

The ATC system needs evolutionary changes, not revolutionary changes. Its quite efficient.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
However, the new runway arrangement will also simplify ATC tasks...

ORD's runway layout is the major culprit, as is nature. The weather there, both summer and winter, causes massive problems when you have a bunch of runways cris-crossing like pretzels.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:01 pm

You can add all the runways you want. You're still going to need space in the air and on the field for them. The runway in MKE doesn't see the use that 9R/27L and 10/28 see as it is. When we land we're usually waiting on a gate anyway.
DMI
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:05 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):


United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.

Agreed
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:23 pm

Quoting joeman (Reply 8):
Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU

Ever think that those places were lucky to even have any semblance of a hub in the first place?
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
Peotone or other nearby hub isn't the doomsday.

I absolutely think it'd be a doomsday for ORD management and the city of Chicago, within the context of tax and revenue collection. Should MDW ever outgrow its cozy confines, it's conceivable a Peotone facility would quickly become the de facto benefactor of WN traffic. It's not entirely far-fetched to have ORD serve as the airport that serves downtown Chicago, the northern and northwestern suburbs while Peotone grabs what used to serve MDW, some growth related to the ever-expanding southwestern/western Chicago suburbs and NW Indiana, specialty leisure/charters, and possibly some mainline carriers (yes, I'm aware that UA has never really succeeded at MDW).

Basically, any scenario in which the bulk of air traffic serving Chicago O&Ds outside of the city proper is a loss for the city of Chicago. Strong-arming carriers into buying into something runs the risk of chasing away some traffic down the road and/or throwing their weight behind Peotone.

777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:01 am

Quoting 777fan (Reply 35):
Should MDW ever outgrow its cozy confines

Do you really see this happening though? Unless Chicagoland undergoes a HUGE population expansion which it has not in the past several years or decades for that matter, I don't see this taking place. Peotone is doomsday for the IL taxpayer! Peotone has been the dream of the state for over 10 years now, and all I can envision it being is a northern replica of that disaster down state known as Mid America airport.

How far off capacity is MDW both runway and terminal wise? I think WN would be hard pressed to get close to that type of operation at MDW unless they had a significant change in their business strategy. Maybe if AA told the city "pound sand we're only operating daily flights to the other cornerstones starting tomorrow", WN could possibly approach operational capacity at MDW provided no other carrier backfilled T3 at ORD.

The city could probably stand to put plans for 9C-27C on hold for a bit, but at some point it will most likely be necessary. The Dept of Aviation's primary goal for O'Hare should be terminal complex expansion/remodeling after the completion of 10R-28L.
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
 
Cross757
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:32 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:04 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 11):
Just to be clear... ORD already has 3 parallel runways, one of them new and one lengthened.
Quoting United_fan (Reply 17):
The last thing ORD needs is expansion.
Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
find it baffling that United and American thinks that the airport needs no expansion. When there are greater than 15% (being very generous here) of flights not operating on time, that indicates a problem. I can see how they can disregard the need for runway (9C-27C) as the other 7 runways should be more than sufficient to cover the airport's needs for the foreseeable future.

In my opinion, it's not necessarily expansion that ORD is after, but rather the new runways are being built to improve the operational efficiency of the airport. If I'm not mistaken, as some of the other new parallel east-west runways come online, some of the older runways will be closed. The main problem with the current layout is that with the exception of runway 04R-22L, all the runways at ORD intersect with at least one other runway, which limits the amount of operations per hour. Its for this reason, at least in part, that ATL, with its all-parallel runway system, overtook ORD as the busiest airport in the country (eventually the world) because it could handle a higher flow of traffic. Especially in bad weather conditions, a parallel runway layout, such at at ATL and later perfected by the new DEN, allows for independent simultaneous instrument approaches, something that is much more difficult at ORD as it is currently. This is what doomed my former beloved home airport, Denver Stapleton: the runway layout was nothing short of disasterous, because the runways were so close together, simultaneous instrument approach operations were not possible, which significantly reduced the number of takeoffs and landings the airport could handle during times of bad weather. Well, that and a terminal/councourse layout that caused massive traffic jams, but that discussion could be a whole other thread in itself.

Keep in mind that ORD's currrent runway layout was designed back in the late 1950's/early 1960's when the propeller-driven aircraft of the time were much more vulnerable to crossiwnds, hence the radial layout of multiple runways going in just about every direction. Modern jets are affected less by crosswinds, so having many runways running in every direction were not necessarily required. The eventual layout of almost all parallel runways at ORD will, most likely, significantly reduce congestion and consequently greatly reduce delays at the airport, particularly in bad weather.

Therefore I think the building of new runways, in the long run, will cost the airlines less, because the airplanes will spend less time on the ground burning fuel waiting their turn to take off and/or holding at an outer fix waiting their turn to fly an instrument approach and land. Seems to me that some investment up front now to finish the project will save much more money in the long run.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:39 am

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...demand-for-ohare-expansion-peotone

That wasn't all Smisek had to SAY. Read this Article in Crain's Chicago Business on the subject because he had something to say to the city of Houston as well...
 
christao17
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 37):
Therefore I think the building of new runways, in the long run, will cost the airlines less, because the airplanes will spend less time on the ground burning fuel waiting their turn to take off and/or holding at an outer fix waiting their turn to fly an instrument approach and land. Seems to me that some investment up front now to finish the project will save much more money in the long run.

Very well thought-out and articulated points. The new ORD runway layout, will save airlines a huge amount of money over the lifetime of the airport, increase efficiency both on the ground and in the sky, and have positive environmental impacts to boot. Oh, and it will be a heck of a lot cheaper to complete the expansion now than it will be in five, ten, or fifteen years. Costs only rise over time.
Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:57 am

Quoting kordcj (Reply 36):
that disaster down state known as Mid America airport.

To be fair BLV was a conversion of Scott AFB not an airport built from scratch.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
ZBA2CGX
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:33 pm

Quoting kordcj (Reply 36):
The city could probably stand to put plans for 9C-27C on hold for a bit, but at some point it will most likely be necessary. The Dept of Aviation's primary goal for O'Hare should be terminal complex expansion/remodeling after the completion of 10R-28L.

Sure, the city can do that. As long as the airlines agree to make all the existing gates Commonn Use. I would like to get the best gate utilization if my passenger fees are being used.

BTW when are the leases up for the various airlines at T1, T2, T3?
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting christao17 (Reply 39):
Oh, and it will be a heck of a lot cheaper to complete the expansion now than it will be in five, ten, or fifteen years. Costs only rise over time.

Very true although I think the BIGGEST reason to complete it now is political. Do it while you have the political power to do so. You try to come back and add another runway in 5-10 years, who knows what the political climate will be. Terminals can be renovated and expanded or new ones constructed without much impact to the neighboring communities...it is the runways that are the most difficult to get through...just ask the fine folks at LHR and FRA and other airports around the world. People can hate Richard M. Daley but his legacy will be 6 parallel runways at ORD, nothing short of a miracle IM(not so H)O...
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: UA: No Need For ORD Expansion

Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:21 am

Quoting ZBA2CGX (Reply 41):
BTW when are the leases up for the various airlines at T1, T2, T3?

According to the lawsuit that UA and AA filed against the city to prohibit the city from gaining funding for Phase II of the OMP, the Amended and Restated Airport Use Agreement and Terminal Facilities Lease with both UA and AA is valid from January 1,1985 to May 1, 2018. That's kinda cool that both the airlines have nearly identical leases with the city. If Rahm is still mayor then, I'll be curious to see how he negotiates the new lease terms. I'm sure it'll be a game of who blinks first. Hopefully by then ORD is running back at 140% terminal capacity so the airlines can't screw the city.
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.